On 6thNovember 2012 the charity Sense about Science, a sibling of the Science Media Centre, announced that Professor Simon Wessely had been awarded the inaugural John Maddox Prize“for his ambition and courage in the field of ME (chronic fatigue syndrome) and Gulf War syndrome, and the way he has dealt bravely with intimidation and harassment when speaking about his work and that of colleagues”(http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/2012-maddox-prize.html).

Wessely’s plentiful published and spoken views on the psychosomatic nature of ME are well-known, and people will recall that in 2000, Anthony Komaroff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard, said: “There is now considerable evidence of an underlying biological process which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that (ME/CFS) involves symptoms that are only imagined or amplified because of underlying psychiatric distress. It is time to put that hypothesis to rest”(The Biology of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Anthony Komaroff. Am J Med 2000:108:99-105).

Indeed, in the above letter that is on the website of the Independent on Sunday, Professor Peter White and his 26 co-signatories confirmed that the “accusations”against Professor Wessely are “false”and that “it was because of accusations like this that Professor Wessely received the award in the first place”.

Now we see that Professor Wessely has been awarded a knighthood in the New Year Honours for his work on Gulf War Syndrome.

It can hardly be forgotten that Wessely has denied the very existence of a Gulf War Syndrome: in their official report published in The Lancet (Health of UK servicemen who served in Persian Gulf War; Catherine Unwin, Anthony David, Simon Wessely et al; Lancet 16 January 1999:353:169-178), the authors claimed they found an association with the“belief”of exposure to a chemical attack, but they failed to identify a specific illness among Gulf War veterans and concluded that there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome. In an accompanying supportive article, the late Stephen Straus was categoric: “The cumulative studies now confirm that there is no unique Gulf War syndrome”.

Thirteen years later, acknowledging his honour, Wessely says: “There may not be a distinct illness -- Gulf War Syndrome is a misnomer—Rather it’s an illness or health effect”(Military health expert knighted: 28thDecember 2012:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20850694). Wessely’s comment must be seen in the light of the fact that “illness” is now deemed by some to be a “behaviour” and in order to be afforded legitimacy, one must have a “disease” (The Scientific and Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits (TSO, 2005) written by Gordon Waddell and Mansel Aylward; published by the Department for Work and Pensions).

Nine months after Wessely et al published their negative findings in The Lancet, a two-year study carried out by Dr Beatrice Golomb for the US Defense Department did not support their conclusions. On 20thOctober 1999 at 2.20am it was announced on the BBC World Service that, as a result of the Golomb study, the Pentagon had released a statement confirming that it had changed its policy and now admitted that there could be a link with Gulf War Syndrome and the use of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) anti-nerve gas tablets (which UK troops were forced to take during the conflict in the Gulf). This cast significant doubt on the reliability of Wessely’s findings.

Subsequently the 2008 report of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illness categorically identified concomitant exposure to PB and organophosphate pesticides as causative agents in GWS (see below).

Evidence presented at the Second World Congress on CFS and Related Disorders (including GWS) on 9-12thSeptember 1999 in Brussels included findings in GWS of inadequate cardiovascular support (Professor Ben Natelson); the possible role of environmental factors (Professor Paul Levine); reports of 600 cases of anaphylaxis in US Marines (Professor Garth Nicholson), and evidence that the Gulf War conflict had been the most toxic war in military history (Professor Malcolm Hooper), who told of the injection of vaccines which included biological warfare agents and of exposure to chemical warfare agents including mustard gas and sarin. When they were ordered to take the NAPS (Nerve Agent Protection Sets) tablets, some troops experienced classic autonomic effects such as sweating and uncontrollable diarrhoea, which resulted in their protection suits being soiled with their own excrement. In addition there was exposure to depleted uranium (DU) and to toxic smoke from oil-well fires and exposure to solvents and biohazards such as malaria, Leishmaniasis, fleas, scabies, sand flies and mosquitos.

It was easy to design studies which gave the desired result, said Hooper, but there was little doubt that the troops had received a cholinergic triple whammy, and he pointed out that almost the entire cholinergic system would be damaged and/or rendered dysfunctional. Could a person still function? The answer was No – the central nervous system was affected, as were the autonomic and peripheral nervous systems. Hooper discussed various diagnostic tests which ought to have been carried out on the Gulf War veterans, including neurological, immunological, cardiovascular, renal and liver function tests, as well as tests for genetic markers, for assessment of oxidative status, for bone density, for pancreatic and gut function and permeability, and for levels of micro-nutrients (Denigration by Design? Update November 1999: http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Denigrationbydesign.htm).

On his own admission, in his official study of Gulf War veterans, Wessely performed no clinical examination or laboratory investigations. He worked only from a self-report questionnaire sent only to selected veterans, yet he confidently concluded that there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome and the MOD accepted his findings.

In 1999, statistics showed that in the US, 9,000 Gulf War deployed personnel were dead (and these were previously fit and healthy young men) and that there were 230,000 medical cases. From the UK alone, 53,000 troops were involved in the Gulf War but it was not known how many were ill or dead because the only epidemiological study on UK veterans was the one done by Wessely et al which failed to identify a specific Gulf War Syndrome.

A review of all the epidemiological data by Lea Steele for the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ illness in Washington DC published on 17thNovember 2008 found between 25 – 30% of deployed and prepared-for-deployment veterans were sick. In the UK this equates to 13,000 to 16,000 veterans. Many of these have died and the remainder live with unacknowledged chronic multi-system conditions with deleterious health and social effects on wives and children.

This 2008 report runs to over 450 pages and contains more than 1,800 references. Its most important findings are that PB and NAPS tablets were causally linked to GWS and that pesticides, especially organophosphates, were causally linked to GWS.

The report states that GWS has the following features:

it is a complex, chronic, organic illness

many veterans show evidence of physical brain injury

it is not a stress-related condition or due to PTSD

features that have been demonstrated by extensive investigations including advanced brain imaging include abnormalities of brain structure (including cancer); impaired function of the autonomic nervous system; cardiovascular and respiratory dysfunction and disease; neuroendocrine abnormalities resulting in serious physical impairment, Parkinson’s Disease, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease; altered control of cerebral blood flow; alterations in immune system and function; genetic variation in enzymes responsible for protection against neurotoxins; damage to the skeletal system at tissue and cellular level; increased cancer risk, especially brain, bowel, blood, bone, bladder and lung (associated with the principle toxins and DU)

Notwithstanding this evidence, it seems that nothing has changed the belief of Simon Wessely, the “leading researcher into the health of military personnel” whose work has“dramatically improved mental health services for the Armed Forces”that there is no Gulf War Syndrome.

Perhaps Sir Simon and those who nominated him are unaware of two reports in the journal Neuro-epidemiology that once again seem to prove him to be entirely wrong about Gulf War Syndrome.

A study of meteorological and intelligence evidence tracking the fall-out of chemical weapons and the bombing of chemical weapons stores shows that what the troops reported was correct (though denied by the authorities at the time) and provides direct confirmation of repetitive exposure to low level sarin nerve agent resulting from that fall-out (James J Tuite and Robert W Haley; Neuro-epidemiology 2013:40:160-177).

A companion study shows that exposure to low level sarin nerve agent in fall-out from the bombing by coalition forces in the initial air war contributed to chronic illness which is“manifested by fatigue, fever and night sweats, memory and concentration problems, pathogen-free diarrhoea, sexual dysfunction, chronic body pain and other symptoms compatible with autonomic nervous system dysfunction and damage to the brain’s cholinergic system, referred to as Gulf War illness”(Robert W Haley and James J Tuite; Neuro-epidemiology 2013:40:178-189).

Is it not curious -- disturbing even – that such honours should be bestowed upon a psychiatrist whose beliefs and doctrine do not accord with the published science and whose beliefs have been so compellingly disproven?

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

By Joan Mcparland:
Happy Christmas to all my friends. Instead of Christmas cards this year I have donated to ME Research and to The Salvation Army who will home and are feeding a homeless person for £19 over the holiday period. There are two reasons for this, the first is obvious and the second is that we have visited an M.E. patient who is left to live on £71 a week due to benefit cuts. This patient lives alone, has no heat, no food and family who don't understand the illness and say it's just laziness. Members of the support group very kindly gave us bedclothes and food to try to make Christmas a little brighter for this one of many patients left in this intolerable situation this year.

Friday, December 21, 2012

10 years ago, the Belgian government opened their five treatment centres for ME/CFS, the so-called reference centres, to cure 70% of ME/CFS patients with CBT and GET as that is what the Belgian Simon Wessely, psychiatrist Prof. Dr. Boudewijn Van Houdenhove, and his Nijmegen colleagues have been saying for decades.

The Belgian government invested a lot of money, €15 million, but they also reviewed things regularly.

Each review showed that CBT and GET were making things worse.

So, the centres got more time, and more money to improve things.

And after 10 years of treating ME/CFS patients with CBT and GET in five Belgian government centres, it is now crystal clear that CBT and GET make things worse in ME/CFS, which means that CBT and GET harm ME/CFS patients.

the do no harm principle is one of the main principles of medicine, and Revalidation of doctors, which has just started in the UK in the Shipman aftermath, is all about protecting patients against doctors who harm them.

so, the Belgian review of using CBT and GET for ME/CFS for 10 years in five government treatment centres has major implications for revalidation of doctors in the UK as this means that doctors who use and /or promote CBT and /or GET for ME/CFS should fail their revalidation.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

On Tuesday 6.11.2012, Emily Collingridge was buried. She died from severe MEcfs.

Just hours later Simon Wessely was awarded the Simon Wessely award for vested interest psychiatry for leaving millions of severely ill patients to rot, as Simon Wessely and the other CBT psychiatrist have made sure that there is no proper treatment for this severely disabling neuro immune disease.

Which of the following Simon Wessely charities has awarded Simon Wessely an award?

Friday, December 14, 2012

May I ask, genuinely respectfully, am I writing to you, or am I writing to all the internet?

==============

He and his journalistic catspaws spent the summer of 2011 and the autumn of 2012 stigmatising the ME community in the broadsheets. He purported that he was exposing the "militants". But in fact he and Dr Esther Crawley and others were attempting to silence us all.

All that was public. It was very public.

He abused his power as a prominent member of the medical establishment, to get a platform for his personal perspective on ME, and so far lazy journalism has let him get away with that. The ME patient community was never afforded any proportionate right of reply in the media - until now.

But once the Countess of Mar, Dr. Weir, and Professor Hooper secured a hearing in the mainstream press for the patients, suddenly the "courageous" winner of the Maddox prize gets stage fright.

"Plenty of people are still dying of diseases which other people do not believe." (Dr. M.N.C. Dukes).CBT and GET for ME: "There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity."

Robertson Davies

THE NICEGUIDELINES BLOG VERSUS THE NICEGUIDELINES

These are NOT the NICEGuidelines. This is "The NICEGUIDELINES BLOG." What are the differences:

The NICE Guidelines are biased publications based on the GOBSART (Good Old Boys Sitting Around a Table) approach.

This Blog however is not only evidence based but also uses critical reading to judge papers and articles. I also use common sense and listen to others. And finally I read both psychiatric and medical evidence and opinions from around the world to come to a conclusion.

I’m not sponsored by anybody or paid by whatever company as seems to be the norm with many psycho people who publish the same article almost on a weekly base.

So if you value an opinion, formed as a result of participating in many ME activities, for example being bed bound for years, you have come to the right BLOG. All these activities have allowed me to form an opinion as a Doctor and as a Patient. And that is important as the voice of the latter is discarded by many including NICE.

If you don’t read this blog, you will miss out on “accredited” medical education. If you do read it, you may actually become a doctor who doesn’t stop thinking or forgets to ask critical questions. Many good things, including satisfied patients are at your command.

So, if you arrived here for the straightforward GOBSART approach, I will disappoint you. If you are interested in forming your own opinion about ME, and other interesting things, read on!

About Dr. Speedy.

I am a Family Physician or GP as it is called in Australia or the UK. I am also an ME patient unfortunately. Bedbound that is. So at the moment I’m in private practice so to speak. I’ve got only one patient, ME, or is it me?

I graduated as a doctor a long time ago, and I am the founder and editor of The NICEGUIDELINES BLOG, an internet based ME BLOG that is devoted to critical reading and cheering you or ME up.

I have the following conflict of interest: I would like to get better and see that the wasting of public money on CBT (talk therapy for a neurological disease, really helpful) and other silly therapies for ME stops, and will be used in better ways.

My goal has always been to help, and if possible, cure patients. With this disease you will soon find out that many psychiatrists and psychologists are only in it to make money and get their name in the spotlight. And what happens to and with the patients is irrelevant.

I stand to benefit both mentally, physically and also financially if this silliness would stop, and I would get my health back, and I can go back to work and have a normal life again. Please evaluate my postings with this in mind! And remember, there are also (lots of) psychiatrists and psychologists who haven’t switched their brain off.